Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
A) The people should not be forced to pay for subsidies through tax benefits and grants, which Twitter has received, because then the government has stuck their fingers into it
B) The government CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BY PROXY.
Did Twitter censor the laptop story based on requests of the Biden team prior to Jan 20 swearing in? If requests were made before that date then censorship was done under request of a citizen and not "the government". We might be looking at a "shady but not illegal" situation.
This is true - both parts. We also shouldn't have to pay for Ukraine, or abortions overseas, or other foreign aid, or a million other things.
And yeah - I 100% agree with (B) as well. The govt is breaking the law (on almost everything they do). That is actually what I said above: Government can't force corporations to censor speech. Just like they got slapped down for trying to push vax mandates by getting OSHA to go after companies. Government is usually corrupt, but this one makes normal governments blush.
Strawman argument. We are talking about a company not an individual. And yeah - if you write a book and I want to put something in it you can say no and I have no right to put my speech in that book. It is your book. Same with Twitter - it is their company and their rules.
Just like here - mods can ban you or remove comments.
It isn't a straw man, corporations get to enjoy benefits of person hood under the law until the law says that they can not do what they want. If I do not hold the right to hinder your free speech then you do not have the right to hinder mine, arbitrary rules to "maintain order" are not law and are not enforceable under the law and have been illegally upheld as law by corporations with the aid of the government for far too long.
Mods can remove what they want, that isn't the argument though. It isn't legal to remove unless it infringes on other peoples rights. The hope is that no one would ever argue it correctly in court but it is not legal just because they say it is and the 14th amendment dun fucked em good!
That's kind of the point of section 230 - it protects large public forums from being sued or arrested from something a user posted. It means they are not publishers. If they however edit or censor posts they are publishers and should not be protected by 230. A book (the example I used was if the other published a book, not me) is by definition published, so I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.
Corporations can censor speech if they want to. Period. Government can't force corporations to censor speech - that violates the 1st amendment. Section 230 doesn't require Corporations to allow free speech - it protects them from prosecution for something someone else posts on their platform. Corporations are not subject to the 1st because they are not Congress (or the Government).
For those that still don't understand that the 1st amendment is there to stop the government from infringing on our rights (and not corporations) here is the text of the 1st amendment:
A) The people should not be forced to pay for subsidies through tax benefits and grants, which Twitter has received, because then the government has stuck their fingers into it
B) The government CANNOT VIOLATE THE CONSTITUTION BY PROXY.
Did Twitter censor the laptop story based on requests of the Biden team prior to Jan 20 swearing in? If requests were made before that date then censorship was done under request of a citizen and not "the government". We might be looking at a "shady but not illegal" situation.
This is true - both parts. We also shouldn't have to pay for Ukraine, or abortions overseas, or other foreign aid, or a million other things.
And yeah - I 100% agree with (B) as well. The govt is breaking the law (on almost everything they do). That is actually what I said above: Government can't force corporations to censor speech. Just like they got slapped down for trying to push vax mandates by getting OSHA to go after companies. Government is usually corrupt, but this one makes normal governments blush.
Can I as a person censor your speech or hinder your speech?
14th about to come in clutch!
Strawman argument. We are talking about a company not an individual. And yeah - if you write a book and I want to put something in it you can say no and I have no right to put my speech in that book. It is your book. Same with Twitter - it is their company and their rules.
Just like here - mods can ban you or remove comments.
It isn't a straw man, corporations get to enjoy benefits of person hood under the law until the law says that they can not do what they want. If I do not hold the right to hinder your free speech then you do not have the right to hinder mine, arbitrary rules to "maintain order" are not law and are not enforceable under the law and have been illegally upheld as law by corporations with the aid of the government for far too long.
Mods can remove what they want, that isn't the argument though. It isn't legal to remove unless it infringes on other peoples rights. The hope is that no one would ever argue it correctly in court but it is not legal just because they say it is and the 14th amendment dun fucked em good!
they are benefiting from protections. your book is not.
That's kind of the point of section 230 - it protects large public forums from being sued or arrested from something a user posted. It means they are not publishers. If they however edit or censor posts they are publishers and should not be protected by 230. A book (the example I used was if the other published a book, not me) is by definition published, so I'm not sure what you are actually getting at.
if they are protected then why block free speech.